Analytic LO Gluon Distributions from the proton structure function F 2 (x,Q 2 )---
description
Transcript of Analytic LO Gluon Distributions from the proton structure function F 2 (x,Q 2 )---
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
1
Analytic LO Gluon Distributions from the proton structure function F2(x,Q2)---
---> New PDF's for the LHCMartin Block
Northwestern University Happy 25th
Anniversary, Aspen Winter Conferences
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
2
“Analytic derivation of the leading-order gluon distribution function G(x,Q2)=xg(x,Q2) from the proton structure function F2p(x,Q2)”, M. M. Block, L. Durand and D. McKay, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094003 (2008).
Outline of talk
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
3
“Analytic treatment of leading-order parton evolution equations: Theory and tests”, M. M. Block, L. Durand and D. McKay, Phys. Rev. D 79, 04031 (2009).
“A new numerical method for obtaining gluon distribution functions G(x,Q2)=xg(x), from the proton structure function”,M. M. Block, Eur. Phys. J. C. 65, 1 (2010).
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
4
“Small-x behavior of parton distributions from the observed Froissart energy dependence of the deep-inelastic-scattering cross sections”, M. M. Block, Edmund L. Berger and Chung-I Tan, Phys.Rev. Lett. 308 (2006).
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
5
Doug Randy Phuoc Ha
?
TEAM GLUON
Fellow authors and collaborators:Fellow authors and collaborators: to be blamed!
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
6
F2 is the proton structure function, measured by ZEUS at HERA
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
7
This talk concentrates exclusively on
extracting an analytical solution G(x,Q2) of the
DGLAP evolution equation involving F2 for
LO or Fs for NLO
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
8
Same F2 as for DIS scheme, or LO MSbar
F20 and G are convoluted with NLO MSbar
coefficient functions Cq and Cg
We solve this NLO convolution equation for F20(x,Q2) directly by
means of Laplace transforms, so that we find F20(x,Q2) as a function
of F2p(x,Q2).
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
9
This illustrates the case for nf = 4; depending on Q2, we also use nf = 3 and 5
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
10
For LO, it’s simpler: the proton structure function
F2(x,Q2) --> G(x,Q2) directly, with NO approximations
We also need s(Q2)
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
11
Simple for LO, and don’t depend on Q2
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
12
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
13
Same general form of equations for both
LO and NLO
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
14
The convolution theorem for Laplace transforms
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
15
Not enough time for details of inversion algorithm: See M. M. Block, Eur. Phys. J. C. 65, 1 (2010).
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
16
Blue dots = GMSTW
Red Curves = Numerical Inversion of Laplace transform
NLO GMSTW2008, Q2 = 1, 5, 20, 100, Mz2 GeV2,
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
17
LO G(v), using ZEUS data, from Laplace Numerical Inversion of g(s), for Q2 = 5 GeV2, where v = ln(1/x)
Blue Dots = Exact Analytic SolutionRed Curve= numerical inversion of Laplace transform.Derived from global fit to ZEUS F2(x,Q2), Fig.1, M. M. Block, EPJC. 65, 1 (2010).
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
18
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
19
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
20
Results of an 8-parameter fit to ZEUS proton structure function data for x<0.09. The renormalized d.f. =1.1
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
21
LO Gluon Distributions:
GCTEQ6L compared to our ZEUS LO G(x), for Q2 = 5, 20 and 100 GeV2
CTEQ6L
Kinematic HERA
boundary
Why are there large differences where there are F2 data?
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
22
Look at Proton structure functions, F2 , compared to ZEUS data:
1) CTEQ6L, constructed from LO quark distributions,
2) Our fit to ZEUS data, Q2 = 4.5, 22 and 90 GeV2
CTEQ6L
CTEQ6L disagrees with experimental ZEUS data!
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
23
Proton structure functions, F2 , compared to ZEUS data:
1) MSTW2008, constructed from NLO quark distributions,
2) Our fit to ZEUS data , Q2 = 4.5, 22 and 90 GeV2
NLO MSTW
MSTW2008 does much better than CTEQ6L, but still not a good fit
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
24
NLO G(x) , constructed from a fit to ZEUS F2 data, compared to MSTW2008, for Q2 = 100 and Mz
2 GeV2
Dashed = our G Solid = NLO MSTW
Very different gluon values at the Z mass
Note the different shapes for G derived from F2 data compared to G from evolution---a remnant of MSTW assuming parton distribution shapes at Q0
2 = 1 GeV2. Differences grow larger as Q2 increases!
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
25
LO and NLO G(x) , from MSTW2008, for Q2 = 10, 30 and 100 GeV2
Dashed = NLO
Solid = LO
Enormous differences between gluon
distributions for small x, for next order in s ; no large changes in quark
distributions
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
26
Dashed = NLO
Solid = LO
LO and NLO G(x) , from F2 fit to ZEUS, for Q2 = 10, 30 and 100 GeV2
Again, very large differences between
gluon distributions for small x, for next order in s ; what does LO gluon
mean?
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
27
Conclusions
1. We have shown that detailed knowledge of the proton structure function F2(x,Q2) and s(Q2) determines G(x)=xg(x); for LO, it is all that is necessary. For NLO, addition of tiny terms involving NLO partons are required for high accuracy.
2. No a priori theoretical knowledge or guessing of the shape of the gluon distribution at Q0
2---where evolution starts--- is needed; experimental measurements determine the shape!
3. Our gluon distributions at small x disagree with both LO CTEQ6L and NLO MSTW2008, even in regions where there are structure function F2 data.
Jan., 2010 Aspen Winter Physics Conference XXVI M. Block
28
4. We think that the discrepancies are due to both CTEQ , MSTW assuming shape distributions at Q0
2 that are wrong; remnants of the assumed shape are retained at high Q2, through the evolution process. This effect becomes exacerbated at small x!
5. Message! Don’t trust “standard candles” at LHC.
Future
PLEA! Make publicly available combined ZEUS and H1 structure function data (with correlated errors) so that we can make more accurate gluon distributions using the combined HERA results.
Incorporate mass effects in splitting functions, to avoid discontinuities near c and b thresholds.